CareerCurve™

Engagement and trust have been the subject of numerous posts now and it feels like everywhere I turn, this is being discussed.  I think that is because of the job evolution that is taking place – as the economy begins to turn around (we hope), those still employed are being challenged to fill different roles.  Managers are being challenged to retain their top talent and improve morale within the organization.   These circumstances make “engaging employees effectively” a very hot topic.  There are many differing opinions on how to go about achieving this goal of engagement (some of which I will mention below), but there is a definite consensus that it is mandatory for a company’s survival.  Engaged employees equal productive employees, and productive employees equal more money.

One of my favorite articles on this topic is 5 Ways to Ensure Mediocrity in Your Organization (and not just because # 1 on the list supports a couple of my previous posts).   I personally have a huge appreciation for witty and satirical writing (sarcasm is my friend), but great points are also made in this article.  Trust will make your company profitable. 

While researching for my previous post on trust and a lack thereof equaling disengaged employees, I read an article called No Trust and a quote at the end made quite an impression:  “People do not care how much you know, until they know how much you care.”  (This is often attributed to motivational speaker John C. Maxwell.)

Does the act of caring create engagement?

I then recalled an online discussion which began with the article What is Engagement All About.  As I read and made comments on what engagement is all about, a comment made by Kim Morgan, PHR, who is currently looking for work, really struck me.  She said “As a current HR professional in the job market, I had been floundering a bit with my purpose/strength; this discussion cleared my eyes to the fact that “engagement” is my strength. Perhaps because it is intrinsically interesting and obvious to me, i do not always recognize the importance of this skillset.”

Can engagement be a marketable skill?

Engagement is being thrown around all over the place as a state you would like to achieve with your employees.  But isn’t it true that engagement could also be a skill?  In today’s economy with employees’ morale low, their level of trust low, and their level of responsibility high, wouldn’t possessing the ability to engage be a very valuable and necessary skill?

I know that if I were looking for a good manager right now, at the top of my wish list would be the ability to connect, engage and build trust.

As I continue to read about “Jobless Recovery” I have been coming across another term, “Job Evolution”.  Based on what I am reading, this seems to be a bad thing initially and then becomes a good thing for both employers and employees.  My understanding of this is that in a nutshell, it refers to the ways jobs are different during a jobless recovery and how that difference creates jobs that have never existed before.  Yes, it means that certain jobs have disappeared and are not coming back, but the jobs that will be available are changing and there are some benefits to this.

Basically, there is a need by organizations to analyze resources and allocation of these resources.  As this analysis takes place, the focus on the organizations is to restructure internally to operate more efficiently – a need for the company, technology, and industry to become more efficient.  It seems to me that there is a trial and error aspect of  this by the company, which is making the process take longer.  This means the job opening are slower to arrive.  Although it is taking longer for a company to define their needs in these new positions, once they do, they are seeing benefits to combining different responsibilities into one job.  When they find the right person for the opening, they are seeing a more efficient allocation of resources, more efficient operations and a lower employee headcount – three things necessary for the company to thrive in the current economy. 

For job seekers, this can be a very good thing as well. One change that results from this is that the search criteria changes for employers looking to bring in new talent.  Now sourcing for new employees will not be constrained as much by industry background but more by experiences.  It seems like it will be more of a big picture assessment of a candidate based on the skills they have acquired rather than a search for someone who has done the exact same job in the exact same industry.  Employers will be unable to search for new hires that way because the jobs they are creating have  never existed before.  This opens up more opportunities to find a position, even though there are fewer jobs available.  It sounds contradictory, but my sense is that if a job seeker is open-minded and flexible about a new role, they will actually have the ability to apply for more jobs than they would have in the past.

The challenge, I would think, would be for the hiring managers to define what they are looking for.  Once they determine what skills the new hire will need, they have a larger pool to choose from and job seekers now have more opportunities to throw their hat in the ring.

Can anyone comment on their experience in defining these new roles?  Or has anyone looking for work noticed the ability to apply for positions that wouldn’t have been available to them in the past?  Is this actually a benefit all the way around?  In theory, it seems very positive to me (although I am the kind of person who does not like to be constrained by whatever I’ve done in the past) but I don’t know if this is all conjecture.

I have recently been reading about jobless recovery and the effects this will have on both corporations and job seekers.  To begin with, the term “jobless recovery” refers to a specific type of recovery after a recession.  This recovery is defined as an increase in gross national product without an increase in employment opportunities.   Or at least without a return to the level of unemployment that existed prior to the recession.  I could go on and on about the whys of this and they all make sense to me, but I am more interested in the individual impact, specifically to our clients and candidates.  In other words, it is what it is, (one of my favorite sayings) so what do each do now?

For a job seeker there are many things to focus on throughout the search, but most boil down to self-management.  This has become the prevailing theme in what determines a successful job search (defining career goals, strategizing, executing said strategy consistently and with discipline,  being flexible, continually and actively learning, etc.)   Sometimes you just need someone holding you accountable to successfully maintain these goals.   It is a different world out there now where there are simultaneously more candidates and fewer jobs (meaning positions that were eliminated and will remain eliminated).  As a result, job seeking is a process to be finessed and managed, not simply an outline of steps to be taken to get the next job.  

For corporations who are managing this same trend, what are the biggest challenges?  Is it the emotional state of the remaining employees after a high impact restructuring?  Is it finding the resources to adequately cover the responsibilities formerly handled by the displaced employees?   Is a culture of mistrust and fear created?  Does it depend on how it is handled?  I know from my job within CareerCurve that the clients (corporations) go through their own brand of turmoil when decisions like this need to be made, but it would be interesting to better understand what it is like for them after the changes occur. 

Is anyone aware of some good conversation taking place on this topic that I may have missed?  I think many times the focus is on the displaced employee alone, but the reality is that this ”jobless recovery” affects individuals and corporations alike.  And then our society as a whole.  The impact is huge and I look forward to your comments and resource recommendations.